Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



10/29/2015 8:49 pm  #11


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Hmmmm, one could argue that the death penalty is permissible towards some people. Say those people who are so morally depraved that they are a threat to society and refuse to change their immoral ways. (Nazi mass murderers, sadistic psychopaths, pedophiles, etc.) Killing them can prevent worst evils from happening.

 

10/29/2015 9:49 pm  #12


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

As another Catholic, I am fairly sympathetic to your position, Last Rites. I do not think the death penalty is intrinsically wrong, and I think St. John Paul II, though he thought the death penalty should be done away with in the developed world, would agree. So I think it would be legitimate if the deterrence were a big factor, though I doubt it is.

However, the ideas that the death penalty is a) particularly dubious if not useful for non-retributive ends and b) contrary to the spirit of love, mercy, and forgiveness, does seem to presuppose that it is in some relevant respect "ruled out" while imprisonment (say) is not. For we presumably would still have a purpose to imprison people even if we had in hand reliable data saying that it would not have a deterrent effect. And a state is not entitled to reduce sentences arbitrarily; a judge can be more or less lenient, but there are limits to what is appropriate.

Maybe the combination of factors is what is relevant. I find it hard to argue one way or the other.

 

10/30/2015 5:17 am  #13


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Mysterious Brony wrote:

Hmmmm, one could argue that the death penalty is permissible towards some people. Say those people who are so morally depraved that they are a threat to society and refuse to change their immoral ways. (Nazi mass murderers, sadistic psychopaths, pedophiles, etc.) Killing them can prevent worst evils from happening.

The idea of it being taken into account whether or not persons are repentant is interesting. Considerations such as them being a threat to society or that executing them to prevent worse evils from happening would seem tantamount to Consequentialism however*
 
*Of course that’s no knock-down objection
 

     Thread Starter
 

10/30/2015 7:38 am  #14


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

DanielCC wrote:

The idea of it being taken into account whether or not persons are repentant is interesting. Considerations such as them being a threat to society or that executing them to prevent worse evils from happening would seem tantamount to Consequentialism however*
 
*Of course that’s no knock-down objection
 

I have a lot of problems with consequentialist reasoning when I'm trying to think in terms of morals or virtue.

Do consequentialist considerations have *any standing* whatsoever in either case? I mean, suppose you're being a virtuous merchant, or whatever, is it more virtuous that you also make the most profit or are you just as good if your have the right inner character and basic personal behavior but you still fail to turn a profit?

If you're following the moral law like a good Kantian is it better morally if things also turn out well for you and others or is the happiness of others morally irrelevant insofar as you did your duty?

Even when we reason naively about ethical matters and we are saying non-consequentialist things like: "He was only trying to do what he was supposed to do. He didn't mean for those people to get hurt." we still think the man who didn't cause a bad outcome while following his duty better than the one who did. So I'm not sure how to sort problems of that sort out when reasoning except to merely stipulate out consequentialist considerations, which works but is unsatisfactory for any potential interlocutors who will constantly interrupt with questions about 'What if X happens?' or 'Even though Y got hurt?' etc.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

10/30/2015 10:46 am  #15


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

DanielCC wrote:

I was thinking about the Deterrence argument often brought up earlier. I'm not sure if it doesn't just beg the question. Is it right to judgement an act's morality based on its utility value? It sounds rather, well, Utilitarian. Of course we may chose between two morally licit ways of action based on their utility but that is after the moral fact has been decided so to speak.

That's a fair point. It sounds bad to put it this way, but I'm not opposed to sacrificing a few innocents to prevent a massive societal evil. If the death penalty as a legal institution (excluding situational matters that amount to self defense) is strictly immoral, then is it not better to risk a violent criminal escaping and re-offending than to endorse as a community an immoral act? Or is the preservation of "innocent" lives the most moral course of action?

DanielCC wrote:

I wouldn't go as far as claiming killing as a matter of self-defends, but with that example one might claim that if if the maniac died per accidens as a consequence of the others attempts to subdue him - let's say they club him on the head and end up smashing his skull - they would not be held accountable whereas if they had him subdued e.g. gagged and bound and then decided to kill him it would be immoral

Definitely two different actions, there. One is accidental death with a touch of negligence (people swing hard when they're excited!), the other amounts to murder.

Greg wrote:

As another Catholic, I am fairly sympathetic to your position, Last Rites. I do not think the death penalty is intrinsically wrong, and I think St. John Paul II, though he thought the death penalty should be done away with in the developed world, would agree. So I think it would be legitimate if the deterrence were a big factor, though I doubt it is.

However, the ideas that the death penalty is a) particularly dubious if not useful for non-retributive ends and b) contrary to the spirit of love, mercy, and forgiveness, does seem to presuppose that it is in some relevant respect "ruled out" while imprisonment (say) is not. For we presumably would still have a purpose to imprison people even if we had in hand reliable data saying that it would not have a deterrent effect. And a state is not entitled to reduce sentences arbitrarily; a judge can be more or less lenient, but there are limits to what is appropriate.

Maybe the combination of factors is what is relevant. I find it hard to argue one way or the other.

I suppose as far as deterrence is concerned, one aspect we have not explored is that the death penalty is still a deterrent against killing other inmates.

Further, is imprisonment in itself contrary to the spirit of love, mercy, and forgiveness, or is it dependent upon conditions? Actually, come to think of it... imprisonment can be contrary to the spirit of punishment if we consider how some wealthy folks who commit non-violent crime end up in comparatively luscious facilities.


"Rule 110: Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
--from Master George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation
 

10/30/2015 11:26 am  #16


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Last Rites wrote:

That's a fair point. It sounds bad to put it this way, but I'm not opposed to sacrificing a few innocents to prevent a massive societal evil. If the death penalty as a legal institution (excluding situational matters that amount to self defense) is strictly immoral, then is it not better to risk a violent criminal escaping and re-offending than to endorse as a community an immoral act? Or is the preservation of "innocent" lives the most moral course of action?

Well, if we are rejecting Consequentialism it seems we must reject doing evil so that good may come of it, in which case we cannot endorse the community's undertaking an immoral act regardless of what positive consequences might follow from it. There is also the question of if we accept that innocent sacrifice route how do we avoid rule out its being taken further (if we can sacrifice ten innocent people to protect the safety of ten thousand why can’t we sacrifice ten thousand to protect the safety of ten million?).

Also:  this is to an extent pleading a special case but the willingness to let the innocent suffer in place of the guilty for civil advantage is for me worryingly reminiscent of Christ’s own trial and execution.   

Last Rites wrote:

Further, is imprisonment in itself contrary to the spirit of love, mercy, and forgiveness, or is it dependent upon conditions? Actually, come to think of it... imprisonment can be contrary to the spirit of punishment if we consider how some wealthy folks who commit non-violent crime end up in comparatively luscious facilities.

That's a good question. One might say imprisonment has to satisfy three conditions: it has still to be seen as the withdrawal of certain rights such as freedom of movement, it has to be such that it does not damage the basic health of the prisoner either physically or morally and it has to be conducive to rehabilitation.

With regards to its being contrary to the spirit of love, mercy, and forgiveness, maybe in cases where there is categorically no chance of release whatever personal reformation the prisoner may have underwent (personally I’d much rather release a reformed serial killer than an unrepentant petty thug)?

     Thread Starter
 

10/30/2015 11:44 am  #17


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

DanielCC wrote:

With regards to its being contrary to the spirit of love, mercy, and forgiveness, maybe in cases where there is categorically no chance of release whatever personal reformation the prisoner may have underwent (personally I’d much rather release a reformed serial killer than an unrepentant petty thug)?

Is that a consequential or moral consideration (or both)?


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

10/30/2015 3:59 pm  #18


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

iwpoe wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

With regards to its being contrary to the spirit of love, mercy, and forgiveness, maybe in cases where there is categorically no chance of release whatever personal reformation the prisoner may have underwent (personally I’d much rather release a reformed serial killer than an unrepentant petty thug)?

Is that a consequential or moral consideration (or both)?

Well one of the points of punishment is correction yes? If you mean my last clause then it's not so much based on predicted outcomes i.e. the latter re-offending and the former not doing so, as much as the fact that the punishment hasn't worked.

     Thread Starter
 

11/05/2015 12:33 am  #19


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

 
     I have seen a couple of posts here that I sort of agree with.  Although I value Life,  even the Life of the Unborn Child at least by 3 moths  At Three Months your baby is about 3 inches long and weighs nearly an ounce. Her tiny, unique fingerprints are now in place.  There is an awesome Website I have found it gives a description of detailed development of a baby from the sperm to the birth.     it says that at 15 weeks  -  Your baby's eyelids are still fused shut, but she can sense light. If you shine a flashlight on your tummy, she'll move away from the beam. Ultrasounds done this week may reveal your baby's sex.   Wow.  This website  http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week    is  So awesome.  .   Even if You are Pro Choice, I guarantee You that You will like this Website.

As far as the Death Penalty,   I believe in the Death Penalty.  But ONLY with Cases where a sane person has a motive whom it can be proven 100 % - that they committed the Crime.    Crimes such as forcible Rape,  Child Penetrational Rape, Murder and eXtreme torture..   If there is no Proof and Evidence that proves beyond any doubt, with complete Evidence, I believe that the person should not be Killed but watched closely.     I can also understand peoples position against the Death Penalty.  But I still believe that it *( the Death Penalty)  should be done.  Only in Honest cases of evidential proofing/..........  
 

Last edited by theway (11/05/2015 12:38 am)


Thank You for having me.
 

11/05/2015 7:49 pm  #20


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Apologies for not having been very proactive with responses recently gentlemen,

I just wanted to share this essay from Bill Vallicella's blog as the point for which it argues and the Arendt quote he gives in context touch on the issue Iwpoe raises.

On Private and Public Morality

A couple of brief remarks. The point he raises about taking such ethics as normative in a civil sense violating the separation of Church and State is meaningless if that separation is not normatively obliged in the first place AND, more importantly, is ethically vacuous if we are to consider ethical statements to be rationally accessible thus having no need of basis in revealed religion. To do him justice B.V. surely realizes this criticism is useless against the 'Socratic' alternative he gives.

Secondly the 'more important' point about it violating the Lockean duties of State says nothing for or against those ethics unless they be proved wrong - if they are right then they simply expose the Lockean duties of State as being without moral ground.

The high-lighted part of the Arendt quote rather gives the game away:

The disastrous consequences for any community that began in all earnest to follow ethical precepts derived from man in the singular -- be they Socratic or Platonic or Christian -- have been frequently pointed out. Long before Machiavelli recommended protecting the political realm against the undiluted principles of the Christian faith (those who refuse to resist evil permit the wicked "to do as much evil as they please"), Aristotle warned against giving philosophers any say in political matters. (Men who for professional reasons must be so unconcerned with "what is good for themselves" cannot very well be trusted with what is good for others, and least of all with the "common good," the down-to-earth interests of the community.)

Although it's wrong to judge a person's view on a single quote (and for this I will not attribute the view in question to H Arendt directly) it becomes alarmingly transparent that there's something not right here. The quotation marks around 'good' in the last sentence suggestion that the 'good' in question is not a normative good, but a good based on community interest - now there's no reason why a choosing the best action for community shouldn't be a normative action, indeed this is precisely what one would expect it to be, however were this the case then there could be no conflict between personal good and community good only problems over how to enable it - instead what is implied is that it is a 'good' based on community interest. But merely to act for the community interest is not to act ethically, indeed it can and often is to act positively immorally; so it would seem the 'moral' eh heh is that the community must restrain those who would oblige it to act morally when it does not want to. Beautiful people!

The Wittgenstein quote given nearer to the top on the other hand is quite stirring. I will not say that such a course of action is necessarily correct but still it is the mark of a great soul.

Last edited by DanielCC (11/05/2015 7:55 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum